Priyanka Pandharinath Lagad and Anr. v. Vishwanath Baburao Tak and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2024CA/1361/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Range Forest Officer seniority list; Range Forest Officer in the Maharashtra Forest Services Group-B (Gazetted) (Recruitment) Rules, 2014 — Rules 8 and 9; Rule 9; MCS (Seniority) Rules; GAD letter / communication dated 02.01.2020; Anil Dhas Desk Officer Revenue and Forest Department; Original Application No. 862 of 2019; Writ Petition No. 2328 of 2020; Vrushali Balkrishna Tambe; withdrawal of writ petition; intervention applications; civil applications disposed; State of Maharashtra Forest Department; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; 2024:BHC-AUG:4489-DB.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of as withdrawn; Civil Applications held not to survive and disposed of; Intervenors left free to avail of an appropriate remedy. ¶¶33

Priyanka Pandharinath Lagad and Anr. Vs Vishwanath Baburao Tak and Ors. — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition disposed of as withdrawn; Civil Applications held not to survive and disposed of; Intervenors left free to avail of an appropriate remedy.

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's grievance — that the seniority list for the post of Range Forest Officer be prepared in accordance with Rule 9 of the Range Forest Officer in the Maharashtra Forest Services Group-B (Gazetted) (Recruitment) Rules, 2014 — stood redressed, so that the Writ Petition need not be prosecuted. +1 more

¶¶27

Court's answer

Since clause (A) of the Tribunal's order dated 17th November, 2021 in Vrushali Balkrishna Tambe Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others is being followed and the Petitioner's grievance is redressed, the Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

When the Petitioner desires to withdraw the Writ Petition, the Court is not required to deal with the intervention applications filed by the Intervenors.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of; the Intervenors, if advised, may avail of an appropriate remedy.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), per Ravindra V. Ghuge and R. M. Joshi, JJ. (27.02.2024): Vishwanath Baburao Tak, who was not a party to Original Application No. 57 of 2020 (Vrushali Balkrishna Tambe Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others), had directly challenged the Tribunal's judgment dated 17.11.2021 directing placement in the seniority list for the post of Range Forest Officer in accordance with Rule 9 of the Range Forest Officer in the Maharashtra Forest Services Group-B (Gazetted) (Recruitment) Rules, 2014 (notified 05.02.2015) and preparation of the seniority list and promotions as per communication dated 02.01.2020. On the learned AGP's statement (on instructions from Smt. Asha Eknath Chavan, Assistant Conservator of Forest) that the Department is strictly following Rules 8 and 9 of the said Rules, and counsel's submission that the Petitioner's grievance was thereby redressed, the Writ Petition was disposed of as withdrawn. The intervention applications were not dealt with; the Civil Applications were held not to survive and stood disposed of, with liberty to the Intervenors to avail of an appropriate remedy.

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:4489-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 331 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2305 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1361 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1694 OF 2024

¶4

VISHWANATH BABURAO TAK

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Rohit S. Sarvadnya, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 27^th FEBRUARY, 2024

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

The Petitioner was not a party to the Original Application No. 57/2010 with Miscellaneous Application No. 210 of 2020. By this Petition,

¶12

he has directly challenged the judgment dated 17^th November, 2021 delivered in the said proceeding.

¶13

A letter dated 2^nd January, 2020 issued by Mr. Anil Dhas, Desk Officer, Revenue and Forest Department was subject matter of adjudication in Original Application No. 862 of 2019 with Civil Application No. 13 of 2020. In a short order, the learned Division Bench of the Tribunal at Nagpur observed in paragraph No. 3 while disposing of the Original Application No. 862 of 2019, as under:

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

916.331.24.odt

¶16

“3. In view of this, we direct to the respondents to implement the decision of the GAD as per para-3 in the letter dated 2/1/2020 within a period of three weeks from the date of this order. We hope that the respondents will follow the MCS (Seniority) Rules while fixation of the seniority.”

¶17

This matter was carried in Writ Petition No. 2328 of 2020 and by judgment dated 25^th September, 2020, the learned Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur quashed clause 3 of the order of the learned Tribunal (reproduced above) and granted liberty to the Petitioners “to adopt such appropriate remedies to challenge the order dated 02.01.2020 as is permissible in law”.

¶18

It is in this backdrop that the Original Application No. 57 of 2020, Vrushali Balkrishna Tambe Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others, was filed before the learned Tribunal. By it’s order dated 17^th November, 2021, the learned Tribunal directed as under:

¶19

“26. In view of discussion as above, we find merit in the Original Application. In view of the same, the Original Application can be disposed off by giving appropriate directions to the Respondents to prepare final seniority list of the Range Forest Officer in the State by adhering to the provisions of Rules 9 of the Recruitment Rules and to effect promotions in accordance with communication dated 02.01.2020 (Annex. ‘A-7’) accordingly by making it applicable to subsequent batches. Hence following order:-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The original Application as well as the Misc. Application are allowed in following terms:(A) The Respondents are directed to place the applicant in seniority list for the post of Range Forest

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

916.331.24.odt

¶24

Officer in accordance with Rule 9 of the Range Forest Officer in the Maharashtra Forest Services Group-B (Gazetted) (Recruitment) Rules, 2014, which were notified on 05.02.2015.

¶25

(B) The respondents are further directed to prepare the seniority list of Range Forest Officer as per the communication dated 02.01.2020 (Annex. ‘A-7’) issued by Respondent No.1 and to effect promotions on the basis of the fresh seniority list as pe the said communication dated 02.01.2020.

¶26

¶27

The leaned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner desires that the seniority list for the post of Range Forest Officer should be in accordance with Rule 9 of the ‘Range Forest Officer in the Maharashtra Forest Services Group-B (Gazetted) (Recruitment) Rules, 2014’ which were notified on 05.02.2015. He submits that if this rule is followed, the Petitioner has no reason to pursue this Petition as his grievance is redressed.

¶28

The learned AGP submits on instructions from Smt. Asha Eknath Chavan, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, present in the Court, that the Department is strictly following Rules 8 and 9 of the said Rules.

¶29

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits on instructions that since clause ‘A’ of the order (reproduced above) of the Tribunal vide judgment dated 17^th November, 2021 in Vrushali Balkrishna

¶30

3 of 4

¶31

916.331.24.odt

¶32

Tambe Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others (supra) is being followed, the Petitioner does not desire to prosecute this Writ Petition and seeks liberty to withdraw.

¶33

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off as

¶34

withdrawn .

¶35

The Intervenors who have filed various intervention applications, submit that the want to canvass their applications. We find that when the Petitioner desires to withdraw the Writ Petition, we don’t have to deal with such applications.

¶36

Hence, the Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed off . The Intervenors, if adviced, may avail of an appropriate remedy.

¶37

( R. M. JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶38

ssp

¶39

4 of 4

¶40

916.331.24.odt

Priyanka Pandharinath Lagad and Anr. v. Vishwanath Baburao Tak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Pandharinath Lagad and Anr. v. Vishwanath Baburao Tak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saleha Ahmed Hussain Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Tushar Jayram Gangurde Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Shivraj Anandrao Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Mrunal Mahesh Joshi and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Another

Hemant Bhagwat Kolhe vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Rangrao Laxman Patil and Anr. Vs Vishwanath Baburao Tak and Ors.